If it doesn’t, I guess there’s always Viagra.
The Republican Party’s quest for permanent minority status continues apace.
So if I understand this correctly, they’re protecting these kids from harm . . . by charging them with child pornography for exploiting themselves. Yes. Makes perfect sense.
Actually, when politicians declare “war” on things, it’s because they want to you to think the threat posed by whatever they’re declaring war on is so existential, that you’ll gladly give up more freedom, and grant them more power.
WAVY TV has the list of questions for potential jurors in the Ryan Frederick case. His trial begins next week.
Man has spent fourteen years in jail for contempt of court, with no criminal charges.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, January 14th, 2009 at 7:10 am by Radley Balko
and is filed under General Criminal Justice, General Drug War, Police Militarization.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
TheAgitator.com
About the kids charged with child porn, a commenter on the story said something about creating a subclass of sex offenders. Obviously it’s a streach, but I can see this becoming modern slavery. I mean, everyone hates kiddie diddlers, they can neither get a job nor a home because of draconian laws, and they’re going to be living under bridges. If they worked for free for people at least they get a roof over their head. They should be glad!
That’s far out, I understand, but if these kids are convicted they will not be able to go to school, get a job, have any sort of normal life; what will they do?
That’s some fine police work, there, Lou.
Fourteen years, eh?
…..and how long has W been President? Eight? So you are saying that the First Black President was shredding the Constitution, and American’s civil rights a full SIX YEARS earlier?
That’s preposterous!!!!!!
Also:
Or, “Does anyone have any beliefs or opinions concerning the legality of marijuana that would interfere with your performance as a juror in this case?”
“I have beliefs and opinions that would interfere with my ability to railroad this young man. I guess I wouldn’t be a good juror.”
Not to thread-jack but I was wondering if Radley had seen this in his hometown newspaper:
Indiana Supreme Court green-lights lawsuit that blames gun makers for Gary’s crime problems
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090113/NEWS02/901130359
“I guess there’s always Viagra.’
Or LSD.
I’ll also add, that anytime a politician puts out a Law attached to a child, it usually leads to the inane “zero tolerance” laws that get so branded about.
“There’s no doubt in my mind that he has the money and could walk out of jail next week if he wanted to,”
I don’t know how Mr. Chadwick’s ex-wife’s attorney knows this but after 14 years wouldn’t you become a little skeptical? Could it be that he can’t admit to himself that he’s been wrong for 14 years. Damn, that’s a long time. I’ve represented defendants who were convicted of homicide that got 7.
The child porn is ridiculous. Are we to start charging parents who snap naked pictures of their toddlers? Where does it end?
Also, if you can’t be charged for having sex with a minor if you’re the same age, how can you be charged with having porn of a minor you are obviously the same age of (it’s yourself)?
I guess I am a masochist for coming here. Radley never fails to find something that will make my blood boil. The whole teenagers sending pictures thing just makes me sick. I don’t like the kids sending the pics but come on! ruin their whole life for that?
Maybe we should look into who is pushing this. I bet there is a real child molester in there somewhere.
Radley,
This isn’t an explicit HackWatch in that I have links, but I can assure you that you’ll see the groups rabidly bitching about W’s deficits do a 180 when Obama’s first deficit comes in around $1.6t (FY2009 estimate of $1.2t plus the first half of Obama’s planned stimulus of $800b over two years) – increasing W’s record by a factor of three. Vice versa, you’ll see Republicans bitching incessantly about the fiscal insanity of deficits half as large as the entire federal budget.
The federal government will spend over $4t this year.
From comments in the first story:
“Staash,
I agree.
If Megan realized that immigrants are the reason for this economic crisis, then Megan would also realize the importance of this matter.
Posted by Steve Sailer | January 13, 2009 5:22 PM”
I always though that the reasons for this crisis were the 14 trillion dollar national debt, the fact that Americans no longer make things, the fact that many houses are used as atm machines, and are thus over-leveraged, the fact that many Americans do not value education and the fact that business and government, capitalizing on the indifference of the American public, transformed the worthwhile notion of free trade into a race to the bottom. But thanks to Mr. Sailer, I realize now that this is all my fault.
-hangs head in shame-
-returns 14 trillion hidden under his mattress-
In the nude photos on cell phone article it says the kids violated the cell phone use policy at the school, so they confiscated the phones. Good! School is not always a social event – although it is close.
As a parent I would have no problem with a telephone call saying that my child violated a rule, and the phone would be returned as the child leaves for home.
I do have a problem with the unwarranted search of the phones by either the schools personnel, or the cops though.
I can see this starting right out the gate with fruit from the poisonous tree.
From the Jury Question article:
“Does anyone have any beliefs or opinions concerning the legality of marijuana that would interfere with your performance as a juror in this case?”
That’s exactly the kind of questions they ask in all drug cases to make damn sure they don’t seat a jury of your peers. On the other hand, it’s nice to know those of us against the drug war are being noticed enough to make the government take defensive measures.
I would have no trouble answering no to this question. I feel like my opinions and knowledge of the drug war make me eminently qualified to sit in judgment on a drug trial. But, when I was in the jury pool for a drug case once, the questions were far more pointed and blatantly targeted to eliminate anyone who questioned the drug war. Sitting through voir dere is the quickest way I know of to lose respect for the justice system in the U.S.
Jurors questions.
WOW! The prosecution is worried about Radley’s blog here.
Making sure they get rid of anyone that has followed the story on the net, not one mention of newspaper, or TV coverage.
It’s fortunate that the law is punishing these girls for photographing themselves. It was probably a form of self-grooming which could have escalated to more severe forms of self-abuse. I only hope that the judge issues a restraining order prohibiting each girl from coming within 100 yards of herself at all times.
#13,
I don’t know about you, but I would have no moral issue with lying to the monopoly agency of force regarding my stance towards substances they have no right or constitutional power making illegal, especially when it is potentially in my power to prevent a human being from losing his freedom. It’s like saying “no, sir” when asked if there are any Jews hiding in my attic. Yes, I know, Godwin, blah blah…
“Does anyone have any beliefs or opinions concerning the legality of marijuana that would interfere with your performance as a juror in this case?”
For me, the answer would certainly be no, my beliefs about pot would not interfere with my performance as a juror. First, I think that if it had any effect, my opinion that marijuana should be legalized would help me perform effectively as a juror on the case, because it would prevent me from bias against Frederick as a presumed drug dealer, which has nothing to do with the homicide. Further, whether Frederick was a complete innocent, or a drug dealer, or the reincarnation of Hitler has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not he reasonably feared for his life, or believed that the people breaking down his door were LE.
“Taking nude pictures of yourself, nothing good can come out of it,”
Uh, that is COMPLETELY untrue. ;)
Nando, sadly, in some jurisdictions, one CAN be charged with a crime related to having sex with a minor even if one is a minor him or herself AND even if the person charged is YOUNGER. I am aware of specific cases where this has happened. And yes, the other minor – the older one – was not charged with anything. I speculate it was based on which minor’s parent was more voiciferous in her complaints, and was probably not unrelated to that parent’s wealth, race and education. I also know that the DA, when asked why they were not charging the older child did not provide anything resembling an answer and then fought tooth and nail to conceal records regarding their patterns of who they had charged in past similar situations. I suspect it’s because the pattern that would have emerged would have been a discriminitory one.
Good point Dave Krueger. There’s a lot of room to interpret the word “interfere.”
I agree with Regarding Liberty. Protecting your fellow citizens from an injustice far outweighs lying under oath, imo.
“Actually, when politicians declare “war” on things, it’s because they want to you to think the threat posed by whatever they’re declaring war on is so existential, that you’ll gladly give up more freedom, and grant them more power.” — Radley Balko
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” — H.L. Mencken
“Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.”
@Regarding Liberty, #16
The only problem I would have with lying to the government about my views on drug laws is that my website makes it impossible for me to get away with it. If a prosecutor (at least a local one) were to see my name, or anything resembling it on a jury list, he would spontaneously combust.
Unfortunately, Grassley’s actions will be trumpeted here in Iowa as “getting tough” on illegal immigration, and will be one of many not-so-good things that guarantees his re-election.
They left out a question for the Frederick jury:
Can you flush a grow operation?
I certainly have contempt for a number of things, court, judges, police, Carrot Top (like everyone), and the US Government being on the list. I guess I should be in jail, too as a threat to our way of life.
On child porn: My wife and I have over 4,000 pictures of our kids (both under 10) and over 300 hours of video. NONE of it includes a cute bare-butt bath picture (some of the cutest, happiest and most endearing images as any parent will tell you). Now, I admit that I am totally crazy but this is a huge loss that I blame on Carrot Top. Wait, that doesn’t sound right.
The best one yet is the war on climate change…a war against an imaginary foe never ever has to end.
http://www.rightklik.net/
On a bright note today, the Oakland BART cop has been arrested in Nevada.
“Former Oakland transit cop involved in fatal shooting is arrested in Nev. on murder warrant…”
http://kdrv.com/news/national/80058
@Regarding Liberty #16
Ha!
I hadn’t heard of “reductio ad Hitlerum”. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. For others, see “Godwin’s Law”.
My brain always chokes on articles about people who model for porn. I just can’t quite understand the logic.
First, the public very strongly tries to discourage people from being photographed nude to save them from the persecution that that same public heaps on people who are photographed nude.
Secondly, there’s the potential that someone, completely unknown, might get a private thrill from those photographs.
I’ve photographed a lot of women, some as young as eighteen, and there is no doubt that the first concern was far more of an influence on whether or not to model nude. In other words, the self-righteous moralizers are far more of a threat to their pursuit of happiness than anyone on a sex offender registry.
Yes, I’m sort of interchanging the word porn and nude, but many people (especially where I live), think they are the same thing. I don’t think my work is porn, but some do.
I’m not arguing in favor of child porn. I’m simply making the point that prevailing attitudes toward nudity and sex in this country are irrational and confusing, if not outright harmful, to children as well as adults.
Hey TomMill,
I ran into the same problems. Having a certain line of employment makes many people think you are “rich” The Divorce court is just one place where people get charged with “hiding things”. The IRS likes to think that way about it. Not being employed for three years and the possibility of never working again, may finally convince them I cannot pay off my back taxes. No fun when you go from a six figure income to almost nothing. And, after spending half of your life in school! But the government is responsible for that, as well!
Well, getting back to subject. It seems like , in many cases, the lawyers think they are clairvoyant! I find that as well, even when talking to my own family about questionable legal cases. I saw one of those legal shows, last night, where a couple was accused and prosecuted of killing their own little girl and spent five years in jail. It happened that, when evidence was presented that was left out of the first trial, (by judges denial of defense motions) that a dog had killed their child, just as she had told the stepfather as he lifted her dying body in his arms! Even the OJ case was judged by everybody! Without eyewitnesses, no one will ever know the ABSOLUTE TRUTH! I see that, almost, everybody is guilty of this type of behavior! How do we stop it?!
The comments to the linked story on the cell phone pornography are depressing. I truly believe that we will all be living some Orwellian nightmare soon with a telescreen monitoring our every move from inside our house.
I practice a very specific and abstract kind of law, so Fourth Amendment stuff is just a vague memory of law school. Unless things have gone drastically awry over the last 15 years, I can’t believe just putting up a sign at a school door saying all students must consent to something as major as a search of their person in the absence of probable cause is legal. Even if it is deemed by some kangaroo court to be legal, it won’t be “right.” To me, taking away a 15 year old’s cell phone because it’s a distraction, then searching it, clearly lacks any probable cause for a search because searching the cell phone doesn’t have anything to do with stopping the distraction. Turning it off and putting it into a plastic bag labeled with the student’s name would have been the way to go.
Everyone knows that your legal rights (e.g., your right to be secure in your person and your personal effects) come with responsibilities. As your rights diminish, it’s going to cause a ripple effect with responsibilities. Just what we need — a generation of 20 somethings that believe they have no responsibility.
Gratz to Nick T for beating me to the punch, but I gotzta’ anyways…
“Taking nude pictures of yourself, nothing good can come out of it,” said Seranko.
Heh… Speak for yourself pencildick. :)
Cheers.
People just need to get over the whole nudity thing. Grow the #&!$ up.
Also, teens are not children. Get over it.
“I truly believe that we will all be living some Orwellian nightmare soon with a telescreen monitoring our every move from inside our house.”
Not me, Wayne. Not me.
It’ll be adios muchachos for Cynical at that juncture.
Honestly, our society needs to get over this assumption that girls their age are children. That notion is Victorian Era rubbish. Neither our traditional Judao-Christian heritage nor modern scientific understanding of the human animal back up this Victorian wishful thinking and romanticism about adolescence.
I am tempted to say that they should be treated like adults (they are all at the age where they can get emancipated), in that the court should allow Google to punish them by indexing these pictures under their real names for colleges and future employers to find.
I may be more ‘Law and Order’ than most around here, but the ‘contempt of court’ stuff is scary and ridiculous. I believe in states’ rights, but the idea that in one state there’s a limit of 18 months and in others there is no limit is crazy.
And 18 months is hardly a short time as it is for essentially just “being a pain in the ass to the judge”.
#12 and #30:
School searches are allowed a hell of a lot more leeway than you or I, and given the state of 4th Amendment jurisprudence nowadays, that’s saying a lot. The trend towards schoolhouse rights over the past 40 years has been towards restriction; while 1st Amendment rights have generally been reasonably protected(Bong Hits 4 Jesus being the first major setback), 4th Amendment rights in the school have almost always been litigated in favor of the authorities, and, IMO, are a nice precursor as to what to expect for society as a whole down the line.
While the specific issue of whether examining a cellphone’s contents are yet to be litigated by SCOTUS, given the current makeup of the court, and Scalia’s (paraphrased) statement in a school search case that “schools are analogous to prisons, and the students should have no more rights than a prisoner does”, I don’t see it coming out well. I believe the blanket drug testing with no PC or suspicion case from a few years back for extra-curriculars came out 5-4, and that court was less conservative than this one is. I don’t see much hope for the kids on that ground, though I think it’s a good point.
I was horrified by the same thing, James.
‘And 18 months is hardly a short time as it is for essentially just “being a pain in the ass to the judge”.’
If I was a victim of this nonsense, I can see trying to find someone implementing Jim Bell’s assassination system and exploring those avenues… These overzealous judges have taken huge chunks of these individuals lives away. I’m stunned every time I read stuff like this.
The Jim Bell hypothesis creates a super-state above the present state. It would truly return power to the people. Eventually no individual would want to risk being a public official.
Could violence eventually be phased out of the system cleansed by Bell’s hypothesis? I wonder.
I’d love to see a sign hanging on every door at the local highschool: “Please be aware that entering this building amounts to a consent of search of your person, possessions and vehicle.”
It might take a few years, but many kids would realize what is going on in this country and might try to make changes.
Caution: Teachers and students shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.
As far as the child porn, it seems our country has a weird viewpoint: kids under 18 should have adult criminal liability for their own actions, but should also be considered as helpless victims in need of society’s protection for someone else’s actions. For example, I buy beer for my 17 year old cousin – I’m charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor (my cousin being the victim), but my cousin is charged as a minor in possession (being criminally liable). It shouldn’t go both ways.
People hear “child porn” and freak out, so rational discussion is not an option, leaving us with the “child porn” definition of “naked body under age 18″ and strict criminal liability attaches.
On the contempt of court: we studied about that guy in law school back in 1999. Surprised to see he is still there. The frustrating thing to me is not that he can still be held under the state law, it’s the fact that after 14 years it seems to be the wrong tactic for the ex-wife to take. I’d be telling my client to dismiss the contempt action so we can follow him when he gets out and see where he gets $ from. She’s certainly not getting any cash while he sits in the pokey.
Voir Dire: A French term meaning “jury tampering”.
Boy, the last time I saw a kangaroo court this bad I was watching “Breaker Morant”. I’ll never get called for a jury, but if I do I’ll demand to be Mirandized in open court. The reason being that I am being forced to appear against my will for the purpose of rubber-stamping the conviction already negotiated between the judge and the persecutor.
SusanK,
You’re assuming it’s her intent to get the money. Perhaps her real intent is just to inflict misery (this is a divorce after all), in which case this has no doubt been a very successful tactic.
Considering some divorce cases I’ve seen she may already have the money and just enjoys torturing her ex.
What would happen if they caught one of those 14 year olds masturbating? Would they charge them for having sex with a minor?
If that’s the case, I must have over 1000 counts just hovering over me. I don’t know how many chickens I choked before I was 18, but I’m sure it was over 1000. The statute of limitations is up on that, right????
#38 | Cynical
You should read “Lone Star Planet” by John Joseph McGuire and H. Beam Piper.
It’s free at
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/20121
and it is not very long.
In the story there is this planet called “New Texas” and their political system is interesting. They sometimes get to assassinate their politicians and walk. Politicians were nervous twitchy people. :)
On the youth cell phone photos; soon they’ll be arresting kids for masturbating and charge them with having sex with a minor.
Damnit! Just noticed #46.
In other 4th Amendment news, it died today.
Soon we’ll see child molestation charges for somebody who starts masturbating at 11:59pm the night before his 18th birthday.
#43 | Frank | January 14th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Voir Dire: A French term meaning “jury tampering”.
**************
No Frank it is not.
*************
Main Entry:
voir dire Listen to the pronunciation of voir dire
Pronunciation:
\?vwär-?dir, ?wär-\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Anglo-French, literally, to speak the truth
Date: 1676
: a preliminary examination to determine the competency of a witness or juror
******************
Don’t children still play that game; you show me yours and I’ll show you mine? I guess they do!!
Thanks for the tip, Stephen. Always looking for good new reading material. I’ll post my review at a later date.
Re #50 Salvo
“Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court, said the evidence may be used “when police mistakes are the result of negligence such as that described here, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements.”
Another tool in the policeman’s toolkit — police negligence. I guess they didn’t have enough advantages before, now they can profit from their own negligence.
Police negligence is all just a part of the “new professionalism.”
The State is the only organization that rewards failure.
Tell me again, why isn’t everyone (that doesn’t work for the State) an anarchist yet?
If anyone cares to register on Obama’s Change.gov site, I’ve submitted a suggestion which I would appreciate your voting up.
Reduce police militarization and SWAT team abuse
It’s only at 90 ‘points’. A vote up or down moves it by ten. It’s been voted down a couple of times, I think.
That one gave me pause in my normal determination to lie my ass off to get onto a jury, then my more pedantic grammarian side took over: No, it would not interfere with my ability to follow my oath and the instructions of the court, because there exists almost no ability to do both.
As for this question: is Ryan still facing a marijuana charge beyond misdemeanor possession?
Prosecutor questions 16-22 really raise my hackles: they imply that the police had no choice, that they were forced to execute that warrant by the magistrate (never mind that they requested the warrant). They further imply that they had to execute the warrant right then, right there, “even if the police must force entry into someone’s home in order to do so”.
Nando,
Nope. Child sex charges often have NO statute of limitations. So we are all guilty (unless you are some kind of weirdo that never masturbated until your 18th birthday) which of course is the intent of so many laws to begin with.
Yep.
People love to have evil defined in black and white, especially when it gives them an untouchable justification to impose immediate unlimited punishment on someone. It’s nothing new. They just don’t carry pitchforks and torches anymore.
Wayne and Salvo,
The standard in school is generally “reasonable suspicion.” Which is lower than probable cause (roughly 25% v. 51%) likelihood that the search will turn up evidence of a crime or schoolr rule infraction. So it’s a low standard to say the least. However, in this case the student likely has an excellent 4th Amendment defense because searching the cell phone can not be said as likely to turn up any sort of evidence (so I think Wayne’s reasoning is spot on). Removal of the phone itself as a seizure of property is totally fine because it is the isntrument of the violation, but the school official would need a new reason (”articulable suspision”) as to why the phone’s pictures and messages themselves would turn up evidence of new wrong-doing. That seems to me to be completely lacking here barring a key fact omitted.
Dennis H, “students do not shed their constitutional rights at the school-house door” is a pretty close paraphrase of actual Supreme Court Jurisprudence so, you are (kinda) incorrect on that, but I do understand your point and frustration.
@Nando: “Are we to start charging parents who snap naked pictures of their toddlers? Where does it end?”
Sorry if someone already answered this. But yes, this has already happened. You must’ve forgotten that this is where much of the child porn hysteria began, when photo developers started reporting to the police the classic pictures of the naked kid sitting in the bathtub. I distinctly remember hearing about a 80-something grandmother being arrested for such a picture.
Where does it end? The complete removal of any nudity, sexual or not, from our culture.
I’d rather it ended with the prudes and religious whackos being told to grow the fuck up and get over it and such ridiculously overbroad laws repealed.
“Does anyone have any beliefs or opinions concerning the legality of marijuana that would interfere with your performance as a juror in this case?”
The correct answer is no. Then, you refuse to convict. They don’t like it, they can boot you from the jury.
Nick T,
Views appear to have “evolved” since Tinker.
#52
I know perfectly well what it means.
I also know perfectly well how it is used in what is laughingly called today’s criminal justice system.
The prosecutor’s question #22 is aimed at removing anyone who would find Ryan Frederick innocent.
“Is there anyone on the panel who believes a person should be permitted to kill a police officer who is performing his official duty at the direction of a judicial officer.”
The question wrongly implies that there is no circumstance under which a person may lawfully kill a police officer performing his official duty. In fact, so long as you reasonably believe your life is in danger (e.g., police failed to announce themselves), you should always be permitted to act in self defense. Thus, if a juror raised his/her hand to this question, the prosecutor would remove the person (hopefully on a peremptory challenge as opposed to for cause) despite the fact that there are circumstances in which a person should be permitted to kill a police officer performing his official duties. It will be interesting to see how the prosecutor gets rid of these jurors and what objections Broccoletti makes with respect to this question.
In US vs. Moylan, the concluding statement makes it quite plain that jurors have the duty to follow their conscience as much or more than any directions from the judge. A fact which judges and prosecutors are well aware of, the public obviously isn’t, and the judges and prosecutors like it that way. Hence the very pointed voir dire questions.
“Is there anyone on the panel who believes a person should be permitted to kill a police officer who is performing his official duty at the direction of a judicial officer.”
If the police officer is conducting a search in reasonable fashion, a citizen should not believe that he poses a deadly threat. If a police officer conducts a “search” in such fashion that a citizen reasonably believes the officer’s actions pose a deadly threat, that would strongly imply that the “search” was being done in an unreasonable fashion and was thus (per Amendment IV) illegitimate. Since an officer’s official duties cannot include illegitimate actions, the officer would not be performing his official duty.
To be sure, it’s vaguely conceivable that an officer could conduct a search in such fashion that a reasonable person would believe him to pose a deadly threat, without such search itself being unreasonable. On the other hand, such cases occur so rarely that I would feel comfortable answering that it is not acceptable for citizens to shoot cops who are performing their official duty.
[...] Man held in jail for14 years on civil contempt – no criminal charges. The article does a pretty good job of explaining the problems with unrestrained civil contempt power. (via Radley Balko) [...]
I have some real problems with the Prosecutors’ questions in the Frederick case, as they seem to me to be intended to get around the judge’s prerogative to instruct the jury as to the law, by implanting false legal theory on self defense, particularly the “inside the house fallacy.”
Note question 24 in particular.
I taking some days off work and will attend at least part of the trial to post on Tidewater Liberty.